Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers (2014/0356658) in view of Tan et al. (2020/0396797).
With regard to claims 1 and 8, Rogers teaches an information handling system (Fig. 1, par. 4, 42 - battery heating system 100) comprising: one or more information handling resources (Fig. 1, pars. 42, 43); a main battery configured to power the one or more information handling resources (Fig. 1, pars. 42, 43 - battery 104 powers the electronic device/information handling resources); a heater thermally coupled to the main battery (Fig. 1, par. 42 – heating element 106); a supportive battery configured to power the heater (Fig. 2, pars. 45, 56 – battery 208 (along with other power sources) can power the heating element 106); and a control unit communicatively coupled to the supportive battery and configured to control the supportive battery and the heater to heat the main battery (Fig. 1, pars. 42, 43, 45, 53-56, 58 – a mobile phone may control the heating element though use of a battery heating application, including a setting to turn the heating element on or off (where the supportive battery would not provide power to the heating element). Thus, by controlling the heater, it also controls the power source/supportive battery that delivers energy to it, deciding whether to deliver power to the heater or to be recharged).
Rogers specifically teaches that the heating element can be powered through a plug or adaptor (Fig. 2, element 206, par. 56). Taking that teaching, together with the teaching that was described above, in that the mobile phone can control the heating element’s setting (turn on or off), does strongly imply that the control unit is configured to determine a power state of the information handling system and whether the information handling system is connected to an AC or DC power supply (since it is well known and clearly implied that the plug or adaptor described in Rogers would be an AC or DC power supply). In other words, since Rogers clearly teaches that the heating element can be powered through a plug or adaptor, it knows that the system is connected to an AC or DC power supply.
Further, Rogers specifically teaches that the supportive battery (Fig. 2, element 208, pars. 45, 56) can provide power to the heating element and may be recharged through the plug-in (Fig. 2, element 206, pars. 45, 56). Taking that teaching, together with the teaching that was described above, in that the mobile phone can control the heating element’s setting (turn on or off), does strongly imply that the control unit is configured to control the supportive battery and the heater to heat the main battery based on the power state of the information handling system and whether the information handling system is connected to an AC or DC power supply (since it is well known and clearly implied that the plug or adaptor described in Rogers would be an AC or DC power supply). In other words, since Rogers clearly teaches that the heating element can be powered by a separate battery, and further, that the separate battery can be charged when a user plugs in the electronic device (par. 45), it knows that the system is connected to an AC or DC power supply.
However, although strongly implied, since Rogers doesn’t specifically state “determining a power state,” “controlling the supportive battery…based on the power state,” and “whether (or not) the information handling system is connected to an AC or DC power supply,” Tan et al. is brought in to specifically teach these limitations. That is, although not specifically claimed based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, if one were to read the limitations as “determining whether a power state of the information handling system is not connected to an AC or DC power supply, and further control the supportive battery based on when the information handling system is not connected to the AC or DC power supply, Tan et al. teaches this.
Tan et al. teaches of a warming device that can be powered by a battery (par. 17). Tan et al. also teaches of a heater, a heater power supply, and a battery pack that is charged via the heater power supply when plugged in to a main AC power (par. 25). Tan et al. also teaches that the battery pack can power the heater while the system is disconnected from the power-in (Fig. 4, pars. 26, 28). Tan et al. further teaches that it can monitor the power state (heater on, battery level, AC present) via status indicators (par. 29).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to include the teachings of Tan et al. into the system taught by Rogers above. This would have been obvious because both Rogers and Tan et al. teach of systems where a heater can be provided power via an AC power supply or a battery, wherein the battery can also be charged via the AC power supply. A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to include the teaching of Tan et al. to power the heater of Rogers via the battery of Rogers when the AC power supply is disconnected so that the heater can continuously receive power during any type of power outage or the like.
With regard to claims 2 and 9, Rogers teaches a temperature sensor configured to sense a temperature associated with the main battery (Fig. 1, par. 50 – temperature sensor 116).
With regard to claims 3 and 10, Rogers further teaches wherein the supportive battery, the heater, the control unit, and the temperature sensor act as a feedback control loop to regulate the temperature at a desired temperature level (Fig. 5, par. 61 – the temperature sensor acts as a feedback loop to control the temperature of the battery).
With regard to claims 4 and 11, Rogers further teaches wherein the main battery comprises a lithium-ion battery (Par. 43).
With regard to claims 6 and 13, Rogers further teaches wherein the control unit controls the supportive battery and the heater in response to manual user input (Fig. 3 controls 308-312, pars. 53-56, 58 – the heating element can be activated/deactivated in response to an input by a user, wherein the supportive battery would not provide power to the heating element).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers in view of Tan et al., and further in view of Yu et al. (2020/0235444).
With regard to claims 5 and 12, Rogers and Tan et al. teach the system and method of claims 1 and 8 above. However, they do not specifically teach wherein the supportive battery comprises a lithium titanate oxide battery.
Yu et al. teaches wherein a battery comprises a lithium titanate oxide battery (Figs. 1A and 1B, par. 28 – the heating cell/supportive battery can be formed of lithium titanate).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to include the battery taught by Yu et al. as the supportive battery taught by Rogers above. This would have been obvious because lithium titanate batteries offer ultra- fast charging and extreme temperature resilience. Furthermore, using the lithium titanate oxide battery taught by Yu et al. would allow the battery to provide power to provide heat to a system in a low temperature environment (Yu et al. – pars. 2, 9-10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 and 8-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT T BADERMAN whose telephone number is 571-272-3644. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00AM - 3:00PM, M-F, every other Friday off.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Cottingham, can be reached at 571-272-1400. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118